>My opinion is that anthropology as science depends on how "science' is>defined. I think this is agreeable with the sentiments in your previous>message.>[snip]>Then what can we do? Well, as has been suggested, we can develop a>rigorous methodology to relate theory with observations. This, to me, is>the bvasis of science. What is a scientific law, anyway? Is it proof of>a theory or is it the lack of a theory's rejection in multiple cases?

An excellent point, Mike. I prefer to assume that a scientific "law" can never
be proved, only disproved. Okay, this is a natural science model and I will
probably be attacked for it and truthfully I don't care <grin>.

>As I've stated, these issues cannot be easily resolved. There are many case>studies in which particular models have worked very well if not>flawlessly. Meanwhile, there have been famous failures of attempts to>make models work.

I suspect that social sciences, as a whole, have tended to confuse workable
theories and technologies of inquiry with "truth" (in some transcendant
sense). As an analogy, I don't think that a carpenter would throw out a hammer
because it didn't act as a screwdriver. So why do we tend to throw out
theoretical models that work well in limited areas?

>But I do think that anthropologists are capable of working>towards a solution, at least with developing an explicit and rigorous>methodology.